Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”

My point is only that the laborious conversation between Mr. Gussman, Doug Van Curen and I should have input from the outside.

You are right, of course, that the function and purpose of this forum is to promote research and sharing of that research. I trust that I speak for Doug that we are quite devoted to same. Speaking for myself, my concern has always been properly researched and documented declarations on lineage.

With this in mind, I am quite secure in my particular Van Siclen ancestry.

Still, Mr. Gusman provides continous instances of "lessons learned and to-be-learned" that we should not let go by without comment.

My post, to which you know respond, is designed to bring others into the conversation. In this, I think, it important that all researchers of the family come to understand that the family is yet to be adequately, and records-driven-ly, defined.

For me, a Ferdinandus^1 VS descendant, it is somewhat disrespectful to deny that parentage. For others, the assault upon proper genealogy by Mr. Gusman's mechanizations, for a purpose not understood I may add, is an affront.

Still others are apt to be seduced by old DAR records, only because they are DAR records, without reference to the era in which those declarations where made, or the politics involved during that era. Such seductions, if I may, require something more of fore-play than the solitary declarations themselves. Mr. Gusman, for no known reason, stimulates himself at the expense of those who are new to the subject of genealogy.

People who are similarly excited by supposed war heroes, need to be calmed down and nudged into to accepted standards of genealogical research.